First, he is probably off on the cost of manufacturing the test by an order of magnitude. Then you have to add in the cost of the lab technician, etc. You still have a method that would be significantly cheaper than the current $800 he mentions.

More important is the claimed improved accuracy and early detection capability.

Most important is the concept of using antibody coated carbon nanotubes. If this works as claimed it is probably directly transferable to any number of medical tests. That is where the real value lies and the kid better have a very good patent lawyer and financial adviser because he will need both.

First, he is probably off on the cost of manufacturing the test by an order of magnitude. Then you have to add in the cost of the lab technician, etc. You still have a method that would be significantly cheaper than the current $800 he mentions.

More important is the claimed improved accuracy and early detection capability.

Most important is the concept of using antibody coated carbon nanotubes. If this works as claimed it is probably directly transferable to any number of medical tests. That is where the real value lies and the kid better have a very good patent lawyer and financial adviser because he will need both.

Sorry, but did you just tell a 16 year old scientist that has patent lawyers and financial advisers that "he doesn't understand his costs"?

If you read carefully the cost of the sensor is .03 compared to the standard test with ELISA of $800... This excludes what you listed.. it also excludes those costs from the ELISA test.